Discussion on Private Committees & Court Case Mangement Systems

We attach articles by Cheryl Miller of the Recorder and Maria Dinzeo of the Courthouse News.

Cheryl Miller’s article details the secrecy surrounding many important decisions made by branch leaders. She points out the obvious disconnect between the courts’ consistent enforcement of the constitutional mandate favoring disclosure and the continued lack of access to Judicial Council decision making.

In that regard, several months ago the Alliance requested that Justice Douglas Miller, Chairman of the powerful Judicial Council Rules Committee, open up the proceedings wherein recommendations from the Chief Justice’s Strategic Evaluation Committee were to be discussed and voted on. Of course our request was denied and what we believed would happen has occurred. While the Council appeared to “adopt” all recommendations, the report’s recommendations are on a slow track to nowhere. Because of this cloak of secrecy surrounding Justice Miller’s committee we are left to speculate as to what did or did not occur.

Maria Dinzeo’s article highlights the wisdom of allowing our local court experts to come up with a common sense and cost effective solution to the need for case management computer programs. Rather than reinventing the wheel, these competent IT professionals have identified three vendors who can provide courts with off-the-shelf computer programs that best fit their needs.

Meanwhile the Judicial Council has gathered many of the same folks involved in the disastrous half-billion dollar CCMS project to make recommendations on court technology. Rest assured that the Alliance and the Legislature will carefully monitor Council involvement in IT projects and insist that no more precious court dollars be wasted on unreliable, untested and expensive technology that the courts do not want or need.

Lastly, for those of you attending this coming weekend’s educational conference in Palo Alto, we look forward to seeing you and hearing what your thoughts are on the issues affecting our branch. We also wish to thank those of you who have voluntarily contributed to the Alliance. We are gratified to inform you that we have sufficient funding to lease office space and pay for clerical support for this year’s legislative session.

Happy to champion openness for others, the third branch seems less eager to reveal its inner workings.

Cheryl Miller

2013-02-22 03:38:55 PM

“The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.”
— California Constitution, Article 1, §3 (b)(1)

For decades, California’s courts have upheld, even championed, laws granting the public open access to government meetings.

They’ve enforced strict boundaries on what elected officials can discuss in closed session, chastising one city for using open meeting exemptions “as a shield against public disclosure of its consideration of important public policy issues.” Shapiro v. City Council of San Diego, 96 Cal.App.4th 9904 (2002).

They’ve ordered agencies to provide the public with accurate agenda descriptions of what they plan to do in session — and then stick to them. Carlson v. Paradise Unified School District, 18 Cal.App.3d 196 (1979).

And they’ve deemed public access to government information a check “against the arbitrary exercise of official power and secrecy in the political process.” CBS v. Block, 42 Cal.3d 646 (1979).

But when it comes to running their own governmental house, judicial leaders have taken a more do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do approach.

The Judicial Council meets regularly in closed session, each time citing an expansive Rule of Court that gives the chief justice broad authority to shut out the public. Sometimes a vague reason is given for the closed session — “privileged attorney-client discussions,” for example. Many times, however, the meeting is simply listed as a “nonbusiness meeting” and closed. There guidelines for when a meeting can be closed are vague and rarely does the council report any action taken in such meetings.

While the council circulates agendas prior to its meetings, the five so-called internal committees that perform much of the planning and policy shaping for the branch do not. Brief minutes of these committees’ meetings are usually included in the Judicial Council agendas, but often not until months after the gatherings occurred.

The council’s Dec. 14, 2012, information packet, for example, included minutes for an Aug. 12, 2012, meeting of the Policy Coordination and Liaison Committee. The summary noted that the committee had opposed a pending bill dealing with bail procedures for felony suspects. But it offered no record of committee members’ votes and no reasoning behind the committee’s stance. And by the time a report of the committee’s action was made publicly available, the bill had already died in the Legislature more than two months earlier.

The workings of the council’s more than three dozen advisory panels, task forces, working groups and subcommittees are even more secretive. No agendas or minutes for their meetings are posted publicly. Instead, the administrative director of the courts offers in his regular reports to the council two- or three-sentence reviews of their recent gatherings.

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said the council hasn’t considered whether the branch should be doing so much work in private because “no one’s really asked.”

Opening committee meetings “is probably a good idea to consider,” so long as it doesn’t “chill” discussions or generate new costs, she said.

“Maybe it would serve to educate people about what the Judicial Council does and how the Administrative Office of the Courts is different from the Judicial Council,” Cantil-Sakauye added. But she and other branch leaders still contend that the public is missing nothing in these shuttered committee meetings since the Judicial Council meets openly to make the final decisions on court rules and branch policies.

“That’s the same argument you hear with committees under the Brown Act,” said Mary Duffy Carolan, a Davis Wright Tremaine partner who has represented numerous news organizations. The Brown Act is the California statute governing access to legislative-body meetings.

“A lot of deliberations up to decision making happen in committees,” Carolan said. “It’s important for the public to see that in process so they can be fully informed at the time a decision is actually made.”

No one has accused any of the committees of wrongdoing. In fact, Third District Court of Appeal Justice Harry Hull Jr. said he’s never even been approached about opening his Rules and Projects Committee meetings to the public. (Rule of Court 10.10 says internal committee meetings are closed to the public unless a chairperson decides to open them.)

“For most people who are not involved in these issues, they’d probably be bored to tears” by these committee hearings, Hull said.

But the branch does have a recent history of being hurt politically and financially by not being more open about its work. In a February 2011 report, state auditor Elaine Howle specifically cited a lack of transparency in planning and decision making as a prime reason projected costs for the now-defunct Court Case Management System skyrocketed to an untenable $1.9 billion.

Last November the Legislative Analyst’s Office also concluded that the branch may have overpaid by as much as $160 million for a new Long Beach courthouse under a controversial 2010 public-private partnership deal crafted largely in private by judiciary officials, the governor’s office and a handful of lawmakers.

Cantil-Sakauye has made the call for greater branch transparency a main theme of her two-year tenure as leader of California’s judiciary. She and the council did end her predecessor’s practice of holding closed-door “educational” meetings of the Judicial Council the day before the council’s public gatherings.

“The council doesn’t have closed sessions talking about issues coming before it, talking about how we’re going to vote,” said Fourth District Justice Douglas Miller, who chairs the Executive and Planning Committee, which sets the council agenda.”The council has substantially reduced the number of closed sessions over the last two years,” Miller said.

But members still met privately for almost 14 hours through various meetings in 2012, according to council agendas and minutes. And even some participants privately question why.

One former Judicial Council member recalled closed-door discussions about personnel issues, a subject that open-meeting laws affecting legislative agencies typically allow to be considered in private. But some topics, the member said, focused on “nonpersonnel but sensitive” issues including “political strategy” that didn’t seem to warrant the hush-hush treatment.

Rule of Court 10.6 allows the chief justice to close a meeting for a host of reasons, from discussion of litigation and land deals to consideration of “legislative negotiations.”

A past advisory committee member, who asked for anonymity because he has proposals that may go before the council, said he, too, was perplexed as to why the public would be shut out of his panel’s meetings. Debate could be intense at times, he said, but probably wouldn’t have been affected by an audience.

But the sheer breadth of policy issues studied and debated by those advisory committees and task forces is enormous. They have considered changes to the death penalty appeals process, testing rules for court interpreters, budget allocations for trial courts and construction priorities — mostly in private.

Some committees have occasionally opened their doors. Panels dealing with family law, courthouse construction, conservatorships and foster care have held public meetings in recent years. But they’re the exception to the rule.

No Rule of Court specifically authorizes advisory committees to meet in closed session. They do so because that’s the way it’s always been done — and because there’s no rule that says they can’t.

“As far as authority for conducting advisory committee meetings is concerned, there is no prohibition in law for advisory committees to the Judicial Council to conduct meetings which are closed to the public,” said Steven Jahr, the administrative director of the courts.

But that’s exactly the wrong conclusion to draw under California’s Constitution, said Joseph “Terry” Francke, general counsel to Californians Aware, an advocate of improved public forum laws. Voters in 2004 overwhelmingly approved Proposition 59, the so-called Sunshine Amendment, which expresses a broad public right to government records and meetings.

No definitive legal case has yet determined that Prop 59 applies specifically to the judicial branch. But First Amendment groups insist that it does.

“The courts are under a presumptive assumption of access, not only in their judicial proceedings but in their administrative instruments as well,” Francke said.

Francke conceded that such committee meetings may be tedious or even irrelevant to people who aren’t gadflies or self-proclaimed watchdogs.

“The question is, though, even if there are a confined number of interested audience members, shouldn’t that be enough to conduct the session openly?” he said.

Hull said his committee has had some preliminary discussions about inviting public comment on issues earlier in the traditional rule-vetting process. Typically, advisory groups pass their recommendations to the rules committee, which can send them out for public review before forwarding them to the Judicial Council. But even if the advisory groups take public input earlier, there’s currently no interest in opening their proceedings, he said.

The Judicial Council is scheduled to meet Monday. One hour has been set aside for a closed “nonbusiness educational meeting” at 10 a.m.

Courthouse News Service
2/22/2013
Three Software Firms Chosen for Lucrative Business in CA Courts

By MARIA DINZEO

(CN) – Rising out of the ashes of a failed IT system for California’s trial courts, three private companies have been chosen as premier providers in the lucrative business of selling software to the far-flung courts of the biggest state in the nation. The move to private vendors comes in the aftermath of the crash-and-burn of a half-billion-dollar, publically funded software project driven by the Administrative Office of the Courts, the central bureaucracy that sits above the trial courts. Called the Court Case Management System, the software was abandoned last year after a host of courts rejected it as cumbersome, labor intensive and crash-prone. In addition, state legislators were highly critical of the project’s daily drain of hundreds of thousands of dollars from public coffers.

Sacramento Superior Court — one of the few courts that installed CCMS only to became a leading critic of the software — announced last week that three private companies have qualified to sell what is likely to be many millions of dollars-worth of case management programming to California’s 58 trial courts. Sacramento and Santa Clara Superior Court have taken the lead within a group of IT workers from 13 trial courts called the California Information Technology Managers Forum. The courts participating in forum are from Orange, Humboldt, Alameda, Mariposa, Riverside, Fresno, Kings, Kern, Merced, San Diego and San Mateo counties, according to a list provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts. They vetted and OK’d Texas-based Tyler Technologies, New Mexico-based Justice Systems Inc. and Thomson Reuters’ LT Court Tech. As an example of the sums involved, San Luis Obispo Superior Court, a relatively small court in California, recently agreed to pay Tyler $3.1 million to buy the Odyssey case management system that allows for electronic filing. Tyler was chosen despite pricing its software substantially higher than the competing bidders.

Tyler has been winning a big number of contracts in the last couple years with courts in Texas, Indiana, Nevada and now California. Robert Oyung, the Chief Information Officer for Santa Clara, said the vetting of the software vendors was a collaborative effort by the technology forum members. He said all courts were invited to review the top six proposers, but eight courts were responsible for rating, or scoring, the applicants. Sacramento Judge Trena Burger-Plavan noted that AOC staff also jumped into the scoring. “In terms of the scoring,” said the judge, “I know that the AOC participated and all courts were able to provide feedback on the vendor proposals and demonstrations that were presented.”

She said the forum’s evaluators were anonymous. “Each submitted votes after receiving input from participants throughout all the courts and the AOC.” Judge James Herman of Santa Barbara, the former chair of the CCMS internal committee on the governing Judicial Council and a consistent promoter of CCMS, is now the the chair of the Judicial Council’s technology committee and also chair of the committee’s technology task force. He said in an interview that the individual trial courts don’t have to go with any of the three chosen ones. “This is an RFP that all courts can use, are not required to use, but can save the expense of building your own RFP that meets the California contract code, which is very labor intensive for a small court. Smaller courts that don’t have the legal or technology expertise to develop their own RFP can look to this as a template,” said Herman.

As with the old CCMS system, courts will still be able to choose whether to host their data locally or at a distant location. During the failed effort by central administrators to establish a uniform, statewide software, some courts became distrustful of storing their data on a remote site, as the central administrators were urging. Tech staff in San Diego, Orange and Santa Barbara all expressed reservations on hosting court information away from the court.

“Most courts might like offsite so they don’t have to buy the hardware,” said Herman. “So offsite hosting might not be a bad idea. A group of courts could also work in consortia and share a server.” Herman stressed the need for buying new software and the need to do that quickly.

“There’s about six courts who have a need to replace their case management systems. We have a lot that are 30 years old. We have situations where courts are still on county mainframe systems and counties are saying we’re upgrading our mainframes and the cost will be ‘x’ which the courts can’t afford.” In an email, Herman added, “I want to emphasize that there is limited and dwindling funding for technology. We can’t keep courthouse doors open without functioning case management systems and more efficient business practices. And both the executive and legislative branches have made it clear that there will be no technology funding without a technology plan in collaboration with the courts.”

Some judges, while supportive of the efforts by the trial court-based technology forum, are skeptical of court officials and other judges with past connections to the controversial CCMS project, some of whom are on Herman’s task force and will be trying to convince lawmakers to fund the new software systems. “I can just imagine the legislature breaking out in laughter when they say, ‘Let’s see you have the $2 billion boondoggle and the same ship of people here asking for more money for technology,’ ” said Judge Andy Banks of Orange County Superior Court. His court currently uses an older version of CCMS, and has not shown any inclination toward switching to any of the new vendors. While Orange has been held up as a shining example of CCMS’ success as an IT system — and the court is currently leading a push towards electronic filing in California — a survey of CCMS users from that court was highly critical.

“It depends on who you talk to,” said Judge Banks. “There are those people deeply wedded to the AOC and to the idea that CCMS is really a Ferrari in the garage, and if we could fuel it it would be wonderful. I would say the majority of judges in Orange County don’t think it’s a great thing, a lot of our clerks don’t like it. But the official position of the people in power is to promote it and say, ‘We think it’s great,’ and then there are the rest of us who say this thing has been a boondoggle and a waste of money.”

Herman with the Judicial Council’s technology committee assured, “Every member of that task force was carefully selected because they represented an important constituency in the branch.”
Judge Steve White of Sacramento said he supports the trial court-based forum, separate from the technology committee. He also commended Oyung and Heather Pettit, Sacramento’s technology manager, who are leading members of the forum.

“Many courts tried to do this from the beginning and they were told they wouldn’t get funding and had to go the AOC way or they wouldn’t have anything. Because it wasn’t allowed to work, it was a factor in the debacle that CCMS turned out to be,” said White, who is head of the Alliance of California Judges, a reform group that often compared CCMS to the Titanic — enormous, expensive and doomed.

But he said if courts are putting proposals together on their own, there should be no problem. “It doesn’t present a problem if the AOC isn’t driving the agenda and this is done by the local courts,” he said. “In a sense they popped into the side car as we put this together. We have very talented people like Heather and Rob who really know how courts work and what courts need. They have advanced initiatives that are entirely different from CCMS because they’re affordable and they’ll work. As long as the AOC is riding in the sidecar and not driving it, it’s doesn’t matter to us. But if they are playing the role of central planners instead of just getting out of the way, that’s when it’s a problem.”

______________________________________________

JCW:

Several months ago the Alliance requested that Justice Douglas Miller, Chairman of the powerful Judicial Council Rules Committee, open up the proceedings wherein recommendations from the Chief Justice’s Strategic Evaluation Committee were to be discussed and voted on. Of course our request was denied and what we believed would happen has occurred. While the Council appeared to “adopt” all recommendations, the report’s recommendations are on a slow track to nowhere. Because of this cloak of secrecy surrounding Justice Miller’s committee we are left to speculate as to what did or did not occur.

Given that the actual reorg started before the SEC report was released and a proverbial lynch mob was forming in the trial courts over the adoption of the SEC recommendations and reforming the AOC, justice Miller and his committee did what any good politician does. They lied to you and keep lying to you while pushing the ball 18 months down the field. The theory here is that you are all absorbed in your usual day to day affairs of running your courts and doing your jobs. With so many less employees, you should have substantially less time to review and comment on the machinations of an SEC report that they would just assume that you forgot about anyways. After a recent purge of employees, they’ve begun hiring again and have even properly filed new budget change proposals to officially increase the AOC head count by 40 employees after years of having too many unofficial employees on the books.

The sad part about CCMS is that no one thinks it’s great, yet they will trot out their public face of unwavering support and suppress their personally held belief that it is and has been a boondoggle and that’s part of the problem in California’s judicial branch. People are afraid to tell the truth because the truth has consequences attached to it.

“Cheryl Miller’s article details the secrecy surrounding many important decisions made by branch leaders. She points out the obvious disconnect between the courts’ consistent enforcement of the constitutional mandate favoring disclosure and the continued lack of access to Judicial Council decision making.”

The ACJ, and Cheryl Miller’s article, illustrates what everyone on JCW has know for quite some time: the Office of the Chief Justice, AOC administration, and judicial branch “leadership” is comprised of a bunch of hypocrites and liars.

So true Wendy. It is ironic that the courts are all about a fair legal process above all else but for the Judicial Council a fair process for making policy decisions goes out the window.

In courtrooms under the legal process there are no guarantees of outcomes but the parties all expect the court to be fair, neutral, and above all else to follow a certain process. We believe the truth is revealed through that open process. Those processes also have many checks on them because the participants are all human and mistakes are made. We have the courts of appeal and the supreme court to review cases and make sure the legal processes are followed correctly and there are many people trained in that area doing the reviews. It is all about getting it right because the stakes can be as big as the death penalty or in civil cases billions of dollars. Having a fair process is essential for giving the courts legitimacy as they are careful and deliberative knowing they get the final interpretation on the law.

Compare that wonderful legal process to the Judicial Council where the administration of the courts is done from on high in a top down system where there are huge problems in the process:

#1. The chief selects most of the members of the JC
#2. The Chief’s own education provides no expertise in public policy making
#3. The JC has sub-committees (also selected by the Chief) who are determining policy in private.
#4. There is little debate on policy issues at Judicial Council meetings and almost no dissent.
#5. Public comment is limited to a few minutes at the beginning of the session not as each agenda item is being discussed by the JC
#6. Experts from Universities and Judicial Administration are rarele or never brought in to provide outside advice
#7. There are no education standards for people to be making policy in judicial administration. (such as an MPA or a degree in judicial administration).

These are terrible process gaps for the JC process and look at the results:

#1 Corruption – A bloated AOC with very very well paid staff who never leave and make org charts with them not reporting to the judicial council.
#2. Hypocracy – When the JC says they want “access to justice” but actually fund the wrong things to make that happen it looks hypocritical. They fund new courthouses, a big AOC in SF, and millions for consultants to develop a failed case management system while existing courthouses are neglected, get shut down, and loyal court employees are laid off.
#3. Illegitimacy for the leadership of the AOC. Team George still managers to hang on to their jobs despite numerous scandals and disrespect for the branch because of their repeated failures (CCMS, LB, and the SEC Report).
#4. Bad Reputation – The telecommuting from Switzerland, the raises for the AOC staff, the perk retirements for the top AOC leaders, the conferences on taxpayer dollars, blaming the Department of Finance for trying to strip PJ’s of their power. It is all so shameful.
#5. Budget cuts – As a result of the Judicial Council and AOC actions/bad reputation there is a backlash with the Governor and Legislature cutting the courts.

Add to that the fact that Team George “leadership” makes the rules, and breaks them. . .changes its stories to suit the forum/need (how many different versions of CCMS costs were thrown out there?). . . .rewards and protects those players who “tow the party line”, no matter how corrupt that player and/or party line is. . . .and attempts to strong-arm and punish those who do not speak with one voice.

#6. Punishing people for telling the truth. The very branch of government that is charged with the constitutional duty of protecting the right and value of telling the truth, is led by an unehtical “leadership” whose existence depends on evading the law and punishing those that tell the truth.

Oh, look, another “pause”; wonder if it’s a “pause” like CCMS was. Published today, Tuesday, February 26, from The Recorder, the on-line publication of CalLaw, by Cheryl Miller:

Council Pauses 11 More Courthouse Projects
By Cheryl Miller

SACRAMENTO — The Judicial Council on Tuesday voted to delay 11 more courthouse projects around the state, citing the loss of almost $300 million in construction money in the governor’s 2013-14 budget proposal.

So has the Santa Clara Swag Bag Courthouse been approved, after so many years of Santa Clara’s ummmmmm…….. highly publicized……..ummmmmmm…… faithful disservice to its employees and the public by its highly paid (and many say highly problematic) infamous court administrators and assorted others (presiding judges, and regular judges, and judicial wives/ daughters /ex-wives of judges–….damn, it’s kind of like the Marin bench human nepotism soup, isn’t it) ?

Once again, the more things “change” at 455 Golden Gate Avenue, the more they really just stay the same. Today’s installment of Judicial Council rubber-stamping of the AOC. So not a surprise. Switzerland, anyone? Published this evening, Tuesday, February 26, from Courthouse News Service, by Maria Dinzeo:

(CN) – Rejecting a reform committee’s recommendation, California’s Judicial Council voted Tuesday to allow central office bureaucrats to work at home one day a week. The unanimous vote came over the strong objections of judges deeply involved in the effort to reform the big and powerful bureaucracy atop the state’s trial courts.

Judge Charles Wachob, who headed a group of judges that spent a year investigating the Administrative Office of the Courts, said the council was missing the forest for the trees.

“I think it is important to remember for a moment what sort of got this issue here — because there was a perception of the telecommute policy being either abused or misused or liberally used. It was a headline grabber. And it was not a good headline for the judicial branch,” said Wachob.

“Some of the discussion here has focused on the peculiarities or features of the proposed policy as opposed to the underlying focus — whether or not telecommuting policy advances the mission of the judicial branch and advances the mission of the AOC — and to that, I haven’t heard a very good justification,” said the judge.

The options before the council were three: get rid of telecommuting altogether, allow it only under special circumstances, or allow telecommuting one day a week.

In the days leading up to the vote, Judge Maryanne Gilliard from Sacramento said the options before the council were skewed towards a vote for option three. “That option,” she said, “gives AOC management carte blanche over telecommuting.”

The council voted unanimously for option three on Tuesday afternoon, but said it was a pilot program that would be revisited in a year.

AOC Director Steven Jahr told the council of his conversion on the issue.

He said that coming from the trial courts where he worked as a judge in Shasta County in Northern California, he was used to seeing court workers come to court. “My initial surmise is it can’t make it more productive,” he said, “but degrades the quality of work.”

But after conversations with friends in the private sector, Jahr said he changed his mind.

He added that he did not want his words to seem harsh towards the administrative office employees.

“What I have said may sound a bit harsh and it may seem perhaps suspicious of our employees,” he said. “I don’t mean it to seem so.”

In the private sector, Yahoo’s new president made news last week in reversing that company’s permissive use of telecommuting and required all employees to come in to work at Yahoo. Similarly, Google strongly discourages telecommuting.

“It is disappointing, but not surprising,” said retired Judge Charles Horan in Los Angeles, “that the Council ignored the arguments of Judge Wachob, Chair of the SEC Committee, who wisely urged the abandonment of AOC telecommuting in light of past abuses, which included an employee telecommuting from Switzerland, and one AOC division with 40% of its staff routinely telecommuting.”

“Despite Judge Wachob’s correct observation that Judge Jahr failed to convincingly make the case for the need or efficacy of telecommuting by AOC employees,” said Horan, “the Council fell into their tried-and-true policy of giving free rein to the AOC.”

Horan and Gilliard are members of the Alliance of California Judges, a group of judges who have pushed for reform of the administrative office, criticizing its privileges, arrogance and waste.

But they were joined in their comments by the head of the longstanding California Judges Association, who pointed out that trial court workers don’t have the option of telecommuting.

“I think we have to remember that the branch includes more than AOC employees and one of the things I have seen when I traveled — and I’ve been to 14 different courts- and at everyone of those courts, I have heard from staff that they feel the cuts and the affect on the branch hasn’t been felt by the AOC,” said Judge Allan Hardcastle of Sonoma County, president of the CJA.

“When you talk about employee morale, you are setting up a different policy for another part of the branch,” said Hardcastle. “That needs to be considered. Trial court employees don’t have that option. My clerk can’t telecommute despite the fact that that is very convenient for her.”

Hardcastle is a nonvoting member of the council.

Presiding Judge Laurie Earl of Sacramento, who is head of the committee representing trial court presiding judges in the state, also urged against allowing any telecommuting. She faulted the report provided to the council by Jahr and his staff.

“The report we have before us does not establish the true need for a telecommute policy, other than establishing that it would be a good tool for employee morale, and I’m not sure we have a retention or recruitment problem within the AOC,” said Earl. “It does not address whether or not there’s a fiscal benefit to allowing telecommuting.”

Earl is also a nonvoting member of the council.

Wachob, from his position as head of the Strategic Evaluation Committee reform committee, blasted the arguments from Jahr and those on the council who said telecommuting was important to keep talented personnel and to help employee morale.

“It has been mentioned as a justification for telecommuting as a tool for retention of employees,” he said. “Right now in this market, I think that the retention of employees is not difficult. I’m sure there are a lot of laid off trial court employees who would love to apply for jobs here.”

Wachob then pointed out that in the education division of the AOC, 17 percent of workers were telecommuters. In its Legal Services division, 11 out of 15 were working from home. The AOC’s Center for Children and Families had 27 telecommuters out of 68 employees.

“That is a hair under 40% of that office that is telecommuting at the current time,” Wachob concluded. “I think what is going on is actually liberal and unnecessary to advancing the mission of the AOC.”

In the multi-year campaign to reform the bureaucracy, trial judges have said the highly paid officials in the administrative office gave themselves raises and perks while the workers in the trial courts were furloughed, frozen and fired. The last two state budgets and the one coming in June have resulted in hundred of layoffs of court employees.

“Every court here in the state has lost employees,” Wachob urged the council. “My court has gone from 108 employees in 2009 to 97 last week. If you were to put a headline in there and have the court employees read it, ‘AOC discusses again liberal telecommute policy,’ it will not go over very well and I have not seen a principal, analysis for why the AOC employees should be given a benefit essentially that does not exist for the customers that the AOC is serving.”

Wachob is also a nonvoting member of the council.

The voting members, on the other hand, thought they should not interfere with the administrative office.

Plumas Presiding Judge Ira Kaufman said, “We can’t get involved in the day-to-day operation of AOC. The next argument would be should AOC buy blue pens or black pens? ”

Judge Mary Ann O’Malley said, “I have many good friends in the public sector who telecommute. They are wonderful, intelligent women who are raising families and who are doing an excellent job.”

Justice Douglas Miller, also a voting member, said he was very concerned at first that Jahr’s recommendation was too similar to the old policy, but is now convinced that it is different.

“I have to trust him and I have to trust the staff,” said Miller.

From Los Angeles, Horan noted the many assurances from council members that the recommendations of Wachob’s investigating committee would be pursued as though it were their Bible. An overwhelming majority of California judges urged in online comments for the prompt enforcement of the recommendations from Wachob’s committee, that included abolishing telecommuting.

Horan said, “Apparently the promise that the SEC report would be ‘their Bible’ really meant the Council would ignore it — and its Chairman — when convenient for the AOC.”

Come On! This is total and complete BS. Legislature please step in. How much more proof do you need that the Judicial Council members are complete pawns of the Chief and do whatever she tells them to do? The vote was unanimous!!! Not one dissenting voting member. I’d say unbelievable but this sort of crap has been going on for a decade and a half now. When will it stop? It won’t till the other branches take action.

The telecommute policy of the AOC is such a stupid issue in the grand scheme of things but it shows the terrible decisions still being made by the JC/Chief (same damn thing) given the scandals of the past. The AOC is even out of step with California’s IT world in the private sector, who are known to be flixible with workers so long as they produce, but even those companies are ending their telecommute programs in this recession. Most of all it is an insult to all the operations staff a the trial courts and people like me who were laid off from a court after a decade and a half of service to CA courts. It is AOC arrogance all over again!!!

Jahr you are a complete tool! You’re supposed to be reforming the AOC. Instead you are just filling chair as an empty suit while Jody and Tani actually run the AOC. I wonder what friends in the private sector you spoke with or why their opinions mattered to you when judges were telling you don’t do it!

Every deliberative vote of the council typically comes with three choices formulated and presented by the AOC. They are always delivered in a skewed manner so that there’s really only one choice on any vote; the choice the AOC wants council members to make.

Look for the three choices presented in other subject matter votes of the council. Look back at previous votes. Read the three choices for yourself, consider the source and you’ll be able to save tens of thousands on these council meetings because it is the AOC has already laid out the judicial council choice for council members to make. We don’t have a council of independent thinkers. We have lemmings following each other as fast as they can right over that cliff on just about any subject.

Many companies leverage telecommuting to save money on office space and instead provide non-dedicated hoteling space instead of a cubicle.

So much for the Judicial Council adopting the SEC recommendations. Judge Wachob and his committee have been undermined yet again as many of us knew they would. The justifications of J Miller for supporting the AOC’s telecommuting policy are quite frankly laughable. The telecommuting issue is representative of the ultimate arrogance of the AOC. While state trial courts struggle with just keeping their doors open and at the same time are drowning in paperwork that can’t even get into court files, the employees of the crystal palace, including management and attorneys get to continue to “work” from home. The Judicial Council members and AOC leadership is so out of touch apparently they didn’t see that major companies like Yahoo are ending the elitist practice of telecommuting which as Judge Wachob recognizes has no legitimate justification for courts. The Judicial Council vote today regarding telecommuting which of course had no dissent, is about Exhibit 1,000 in the case to democratize 455 Golden Gate. You can’t make this stuff up. Really.

Justice Miller. He claims to be the new face of the Judicial Council. He can make all the claims he wants but he has demonstrated over and over again as one of the ” insiders at 455 Golden Gate that he is is “faking it ” , only out to preserve his power along with the CJ’s. These lyrics capture the essence of Justice Miller and his fake reform, ” And I know I’m faking it, I’m not really making it…This feeling of faking it…I know I’m faking it it, faking it, I’m not really making it … Lol Simon and Garfunkel ” Faking It “. Circa 1968 .

Plans for a new courthouse that is meant to replace an overwhelmed facility in Hemet have been delayed after a vote from the California Judicial Council on Tuesday, Feb. 26.

The move could delay opening the doors of the new building until at least 2018.

The vote came on a recommendation from a committee that named 11 projects throughout the state that will have some aspect of development set back because of cuts to court construction funds in Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2013-14.

Preliminary plans for the Hemet Courthouse, also called the Mid-County Regional Courthouse, will be delayed until fiscal year 2014-15, unless the construction funds are restored. Site acquisition plans can proceed.

The project was originally proposed as a nine-courtroom, $118.5 million plan. It is meant to replace the current Hemet Courthouse built in 1969 that has been inundated by mid-county population growth in recent years.

Riverside County Superior Court executive officer Sherri Carter said the delay will have the effect of pushing the opening of the new courthouse until 2018 “or later.” It was originally projected to open in late 2017.

The Judicial Council’s vote will not affect a potential site for the mid-county courthouse in Menifee, said Councilman John Denver.

Menifee has included a space for the mid-county courthouse in its Town Center Specific Plan. The site is part of a 143-acre complex planned for the west side of Haun Road south of Newport Road across the street from the Countryside Marketplace.

“We can’t do much here but offer them a place (to build the courthouse),” he said.

The land will not be ready until after the funds would become available anyway, according to Denver.

Another state court project in Riverside County, a new juvenile and family law courthouse, can proceed with design drawing plans for the next fiscal year, according to recommendations the Court Facilities Working Group made to the governing Judicial Council.

Under Brown’s plan, $200 million in court construction and renovation funds are being re-directed to court operations. The governor’s proposed budget also defers repayment of another $90 million previously loaned from the 2008 bill authorizing court construction, SB 1407.

“Should the proposed Governor’s Budget for FY 2013-2014 become enacted, the total of SB 1407 funds loaned, swept, or redirected would increase to approximately $1.7 billion,” the working group’s report said.

State Appellate Court Justice Brad Hill reminded the council that the construction money comes from fees on court users, and that the council would continue to seek restoration for the coming fiscal year of at least some of those funds for their original purpose.

“Court users paid these assessments and have been paying them for years, as they were promised back when SB 1407 was passed, with the intent that those fees and assessments would build buildings,” Hill said. .

“We are only suggesting that enough is enough,” said Hill, the administrative presiding justice of the Fresno-based 5th District state appellate court.

The original Hemet courthouse proposal is also under scrutiny.

“In anticipation of additional cost-cutting measures, all facts are subject to change,” warns a notice on the Judicial Council web site that describes the Hemet courthouse project.

And in October 2012, the Judicial Council put into play the consideration of reassessing a lease option for the court facility.

The same cautionary note about costs and courtrooms is on the Indio juvenile and family court facility web site — but not the option about seeking a lease. The project is currently proposed for five courtrooms at a cost of $65.6 million, with a late 2016 completion date. As with the Hemet courthouse, it is meant to replace an overwhelmed, substandard facility.
Also contributing to this report: Staff writer Peter Surowski, psurowski@pe.com

A lyric from an old Grateful Dead tune teaches us that one man gathers what another man spills.

That’s what’s happening with Dallas-based Tyler Technologies, which is gathering business opportunity out of the failure of California’s effort to automate its court system.

Following the collapse last year of California’s “Court Case Management System” — which took anywhere from $350 million to $500 million with it — a group of technology chiefs from 13 California trial courts recently gave a tentative green light to three competing companies, including Tyler, to vie for automation-technology work in an expedited way for courts that choose to participate in the effort.

In a nutshell, this initiative would mean participating courts could buy technology for managing cases and their finances, but without having to go through the rigmarole of putting out requests for proposals to a bunch of different vendors.

Instead, any of the 58 California trial courts that participate in the initiative would be able to choose from Tyler, New Mexico’s Justice Systems Inc. and a Thomson Reuters unit, LT Court Tech., all of whom have been vetted by the technology chiefs of various California courts.
The initiative, which hasn’t yet been formalized, does not guarantee Tyler a penny of revenue. Courts may choose one of the two other companies that Tyler competes with in the initiative, or may go off and do their own request-for-proposals.

What it could do is give Tyler an edge in going after California court business, simply because Tyler has the made cut as a vendor in the program.

California courts are budget-strapped but also are at least a decade behind the technology curve, if not more.

“We’re very excited about the opportunity in California,” said Kyle Snowdon, director of sales for the West Coast for Tyler’s Courts & Justice Solutions arm.

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – For the first time in decades, the central administrative office for California’s courts will review its staff levels and pay rates in the face of criticism that both are too high. The practice of assigning court matters to expensive private firms when the administrative office employs a big legal staff will also come under scrutiny.

At its Tuesday meeting, the courts’ governing Judicial Council balked at the cost estimates presented by an official from the Administrative Office of the Courts, Kenneth Couch. He wanted the AOC to do its own study of its own pay levels with help from consulting firm the Hay Group.

Couch said an AOC study would be cheaper than paying between $700,000 and $1 million for an outside firm. Couch said the option he was urging would cost $120,000 by comparison.

But council members said the $1 million seemed to be an inflated estimate, and argued that the actual cost of a study by an outside firm should be established.

“That is a thousand dollars an employee to do the study. That’s too high. Let’s find out what it would cost to do the study,” said Alan Carlson, Orange County’s court clerk.

The actual number of the staff has in the past been difficult to pin down. The agency currently estimates its own staff at somewhere above 800.

The council’s move this week was in response to recommendations from the Strategic Evaluation Committee, an investigative body of judges appointed by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye that spent a year reviewing policy and practice at the administrative office.

“The total staff size of the AOC should be reduced significantly,” said the SEC report, which found the bureaucracy to be “top heavy,” with “too many high-level, highly compensated managers.”

Specifically, the report found, “AOC managers and employees reported that there are numerous situations in which employees are being paid more – and in some cases, substantially more – than is appropriate in light of the duties assigned to them.”

The report added, “It is evident that AOC position classifications, overall, are very highly compensated.”

During the same meeting of the council, the head of that committee argued strongly against allowing telecommuting by the office’s bureaucrats, as did the leader of the California Judges Association. Their arguments were rejected unanimously by the committee, in favor the office director’s recommendation that work from home be allowed one day a week with some restrictions.

In light of its findings on staff pay, the SEC recommended “a comprehensive review of the AOC compensation system be undertaken as soon as possible. AOC staff should be used to conduct this review to the extent possible. If outside consultants are required, such work could be combined with the classification review that is recommended above.”

Judge Charles Wachob, who chaired the SEC and is a non-voting member of the council said he was “troubled” by Couch’s recommendation.

“There seems to be a push at least from Mr. Couch and perhaps other staff members to go with the Hay Group and what bothers me is there are estimates of $750,000 to $1 million and that cost range is attributed to something that was said to the SEC.”

“I would hate for anybody on this Judicial Council to base a decision based on that number,” Wachob added. “We had several management consultants in our SEC work and one of them mentioned having done classification studies that that was his estimate of what it might cost and somehow it wormed its way into the report.”

“The point is I don’t think anybody knows what a full blown classification study would cost and it would seem to me even though there might be a little bit of delay,” he said, “I don’t know why the Hay Group train is being driven down the tracks.”

Voting members of the council agreed.

“There should be transparency. Let’s take our time and do it right and delay,” said Presiding Judge Ira Kaufman of Plumas County.

“As a past member of the SEC, I would say as we analyzed and looked at this particular recommendation, we found this area very troubling and very significant so that this is not something that I think we need to rush through,” said Presiding Judge Sherrill Ellsworth of Riverside County.

The council ultimately voted to issue a request for proposals from private vendors to see how much an outside study of pay levels and staff size would cost.

The council also took up the thorny issue of the AOC’s common practice of hiring of outside law firms to handle litigation and labor arbitration, based on another recommendation by the SEC.

The SEC report found that the legal office employed about 50 lawyers with about 50 more spread throughout other divisions.

The same report found that while it is “not in itself inappropriate” that the AOC’s legal services office hires outside attorneys, “the costs and benefits of using outside counsel have not been analyzed critically in terms of overall cost-effectiveness to the judicial branch.”

The council directed its liaisons to the legal services office review its use of outside attorneys to determine whether they are being used in a cost-effective way.

Note to Judge Charles Wachob: If you would like an accurate cost estimate for an AOC classification and compensation study, all you need to do is ask Lura Franzella. She’s one of the casualties of Big Ernie and Little Ernie in the AOC’s HR Division, but she’s easy to find. And she’ll tell you the truth. Assuming, of course, you actually want to hear the truth.

Couch gets paid 164,000 ? That is proof enough that the taxpayers are paying way too much for AOC management. All the JC needs to do is ask some reasonable questions , look at comparative data and apply some common sense to see if we are overpaying for the AOC. They don’t need to spend 1 million dollars on yet more outside consultants to do what they can do for free. One good point of comparison would be the CDAA who employs only six people to conduct their training programs while the AOC has around 100. Given more judicial training is web based it wouldn’t be hard to develop a plan to radically cutback the CJER unit of the AOC within a month. That will never happen as the “insiders” at 455 Golden Gate will never let it.

Hmm I have to give the CJ credit where credit is due . She unlike HRH 1 had the guts to end the tyrannical reign of J McConnell on the CJP. McConnell has served for approximately 8 years making the lives of every day trial judges miserable. Under her rule every trivial alleged act of misconduct was the subject of CJP scrutiny and investigation. She led the movement of extending CJP inquiries into the area of ” legal error”. Her demeanor toward those Judges that had to appear in the CJP star chamber was appalling by many accounts. Her arrogance in wasting taxpayer dollars has been recently established as millions have been spent so she and her Court of Appeal allies can work in a tower in downtown San Diego, a tower she as chief administrative Justice won’t open to the press and public. The press should continue to try and shed light on this despot and her rule so that all California taxpayers can evaluate where their hard earned dollars are being spent.

LOS ANGELES, CA, February 28, 2013 /24-7PressRelease/ — This piece of legislation increases sales taxes in California in an effort to help with the State Budget, including Court Funding. However, despite the passage of Proposition 30, the Los Angeles Superior Court must permanently cut its budget expenditures by up to $50 million before June 30, 2013. This will have a major impact on personal injury litigants.

How will this affect a personal injury claimant or litigant? You as a person injured in a car, motorcycle, truck, bicycle, bus, pedestrian or other accident? Here are a few things to keep in mind about the courts in and around Los Angeles:

– Judges case loads will reach as high as 8,000 at any given time. This will cause individual cases to take longer to move through the legal process and to get to trial. The longer it takes to get to trial the more difficult it is to negotiate a reasonable settlement with an insurance company or defendant. Why? Because if they know they can wait two or three times as long to get to trial where a jury may force them to pay an injured claimant, they can hold onto their money longer.

– The delay in the legal process makes it more difficult to obtain a reasonable settlement or get to a jury trial. As medical bills pile up because of the accident, it becomes a longer process for these victims to receive the compensation they deserve.

In addition to these potential shortcomings of the courts due to the closing of the ten courthouses, there are further cuts to help reduce Court expenditures:

– There will be no more court provided reporters for civil cases.

– One court liaison will serve two to three Courtrooms; the Courtroom will have only a Judge or Commissioner and a clerk most of the time. Fewer personnel with more work.

– Cases will no longer be assigned to a single judge for the life of the case; instead the Los Angeles Superior Court is reverting to a Master Calendar system. Each time your lawyer shows up in Court there can be a different judge handling your case. This means a lack of continuity and judicial oversight on your case.

– The Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) previously offered by the Court has been eliminated. This means it may be more difficult for litigants to get their cases resolved without trial, and now trials are going to be delayed.

As you can imagine, the courts are urging all attorneys to reduce their law and motion activity, discovery disputes, and to try and pursue alternative resolutions to any legal disputes. This will help keep the courts as free as possible for cases that are more complex in nature. After all of these measures are enacted by their due date of June 30, 2013, we’ll see how truly affected our court system and those using it will be.

It will be important for attorneys navigating the new procedures in the Los Angeles Superior Court to be intimately familiar with this new system. Furthermore, having an experienced car accident attorney or motorcycle accident attorney who can move cases forward without the assistance of the Court, and the ability of an experienced attorney to negotiate and settle your case without the assistance of the Court ADR system will be vital for a claimant to have appropriate legal representation in this new Los Angeles Superior Court civil system that will be up and running not later than June 30, 2013.

We here at Scott J. Corwin, A Professional Law Corporation hope that the information we have made available to you will be helpful as you navigate the Los Angeles Superior Court system’s new procedures.

while i think the counsulting costs suggested are outrageous, how can the AOC do their own class and comp study when they don’t even know how many employees they have? 🙂
Judge W. the Hay group “train” is being driven down the tracks is because that is what the AOC wants and expects to get.

I am trying to get confirmation that Justice McConnell and Judge Horn have actually been discharged from the CJP. If true this is an incredibly positive development for the trial court judges of the state. McConnell and Horn appeared to enjoy tormenting trial judges over any and all minor and/or unfounded complaints . Incredibly they expanded CJP investigations into areas of legal mistake something that has nothing to do with ethical issues. They accused judges of misconduct in some cases without adequate preliminary investigation, making the lives of already overworked trial judges completely oppressive. Every trial judge in California should take a moment this weekend and thank the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court for finally listening and acting to thank and excuse these tyrants from the penthouse at 455 Golden Gate. McConnell and Horn were part of the legacy of HRH 1 . Maybe we are finally seeing the hopeful end of “Team George” and the beginning of meaningful reform and change to our branch. Maybe just maybe further light will shine into the dark hallways of 455 Golden Gate. One can only hope.

(Sent on behalf of Presiding Judge David S. Wesley and Executive Officer/Clerk John A. Clarke)

Despite the considerable uncertainty that still surrounds our budget for the coming fiscal year, we want to give you the latest information about our budget plans.

In November, then-Presiding Judge Lee Edmon announced a Court Consolidation Plan that contemplated the closure of 10 courthouses, the consolidation of case types, the elimination of some programs, and layoffs. That plan was expected to be one solution to a budget shortfall estimated to be between $55 million and $85 million for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2013.

For the past several months, committees of judges and administrators have worked hard to figure out how best to maintain access to justice in the face of devastating budget cuts. To that end, they propose a Consolidation Plan that would create specialized case-processing hubs in which the Court will handle certain case types (collections, personal injury, small claims, limited civil (non-collections) and unlawful detainer cases). The Consolidation Plan provides an opportunity for the Court to reinvent how it does business. Consistent with our legal obligations, we have notified the three unions representing our employees of the proposed changes.

We anticipate that the Consolidation Plan will help the Court save $56 million dollars. Those savings come at a very high price. There will be fewer courthouses in the system and court users will have to travel further and wait longer to have their matters resolved. On a more personal level for all of us, the Plan will result in the loss of 511 court positions. Because of existing vacancies, cuts made to non-staff spending, and other mitigation, the Plan will not result in 511 of our co-workers losing their jobs. Until the very last moment, we will work to find every opportunity to reduce the number of employees who are laid off. Regrettably, however, because of deep cuts made by the state to our budget, we cannot avoid another round of significant reductions in positions. Our best efforts cannot save every job. Many valued co-workers will be laid off. Those of us who remain will bear the burden of their absence.

We plan to close courthouses and implement layoffs at the end of June and must finish implementing the Consolidation Plan by July 1, 2013. To that end, on March 1, 2013, the Court will issue a public notice of the locations where civil cases may be filed starting March 18. Thereafter, the Court will begin moving case types to their respective hubs. Some employees may be transferred on a temporary basis to support courthouses receiving new case types.

Uncertainty is very difficult; we wish we could say today how (or whether) the Plan will affect each of you. We have a lot more work to do before we have that level of information to share with you, but we will share it as soon as we can.

We have now gone through several years of deep, repeated cuts to our budget and shocks to the system. The continuing state budget crisis has taken its toll on us all. At the same time we have learned to have hope for the future, based upon what we have seen from our employees. Your integrity and commitment to ensuring that Los Angeles residents have fair and equal access to justice inspire us and ensure that this Court will continue to fulfill the important responsibilities that we all share.

Published on 03/01/2013 – 9:41 am
Written by Ben Keller, The Business Journal

Traffic offenders in Fresno County may now find their faces on screen following a decision by the Judicial Council of California to allow videoconferencing in the court room.

With the approval, the court will move forward with a pilot project testing Remote Video Proceedings (RVP) on small traffic cases originating out of Coalinga and Mendota where it’s harder for many to reach one of the county’s only remaining courthouse in downtown Fresno.
For now, the cities will provide the space to host court proceedings once a week. Additional court days may be added later if needed.

Under the partnership, the cities of Coalinga and Mendota are also covering the costs of cameras, television monitors, computers and other videoconferencing equipment, as well as technical support.

On its end, the court will pay the monthly fee of $125 per site for the videoconferencing service and is purchasing the RVP equipment for one courtroom in Fresno.

The court will also provide interpreters at the RVP sites and technical assistance to implement the project.

Court Call, based in Los Angeles, is providing the technology for the videoconferencing. The company also pioneered a system that enables court proceedings by phone.

Once the project is operational this spring, the Fresno County Superior Court will be the first in the state to hold videoconferencing for traffic cases following an amendment to the California Rule of Court in early February allowing the service.

Such cases are in high demand considering 125 traffic trials were held weekly in six courthouses outside the Fresno area before they were closed last summer in the wake of state budget cuts.

The RVP project, which is available to motorists cited at least 15 miles outside the Fresno-Clovis area, aims to reduce travel time and staff costs for law enforcement agencies that are currently obliged to send citing officers to Fresno for court proceedings.

NEWS RELEASE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA • COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
Date: 3/1/13

San Diego Superior Court Begins E-Filing

Effective March 4, 2013, San Diego Superior Court will open up E-filing in its Central Civil Division. Attorneys and the public will now be able to file documents with the Court without physically coming into the courthouse.

Documents may be filed electronically in non-mandated civil cases in the Central Division where either: (1) the case is first initiated on or after March 4, 2013; or (2) the case is already pending as of March 3, 2013 and has been imaged by the court.

Also beginning March 4, 2013, certain case types will be subject to mandatory E-filing, including civil class actions, some consolidated and coordinated actions, and actions that are provisionally complex under CRC 3.400-3.403 (as set forth in the Civil Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-010 – but not including construction defect actions). “Complex cases” included in mandatory filing are as follows: Antitrust/Trade Regulation, Mass Tort, Environmental/Toxic Tort, and Securities Litigation cases, as well as insurance coverage claims arising from these case types. Construction defect cases, currently being filed through the LexisNexis website, will continue to be filed through that system until further notice.

The movement to E-filing in some Civil cases is one way the San Diego Superior Court is
dealing with the $33 million dollars in budget cuts enacted by the State Legislature. Those cuts
have resulted in the reductions of more than 170 court positions and the closing of 20
courtrooms.

Supervising Civil Court Judge Jeffrey B. Barton says, “E-filing is a win for the public
and the court. The public has increased access to court files and can now file documents with the court from any location with an internet connection. The court benefits from decreased
processing time and can handle filings more rapidly than in the paper world. This in turn
benefits the public as the court can process and return filings faster. By using E-filing, attorneys and parties can assist both the court and public in dealing with the impact of staff reductions caused by financial cuts to the branch.”

For court users, benefits include not having to wait in line at the courthouse or leave
documents in drop boxes afterhours. With E-filing, users are able to file through the designated
vendor in a secure fashion, ensuring all documents related to the filing arrive at the court
together. In addition, E-file users have the convenience of submitting documents to the court via their home or office computer, which means extra time to work on their documents without the worry of running to the court to make that 5:00pm deadline.

E-filing is governed by General Order No. 010313 and the court’s Electronic Filing
Requirements, both of which are available for viewing on the court website :http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov .
# # #

RED BLUFF—Due to ongoing budget cuts to the state’s judicial branch, Tehama Superior Court will be permanently closing its Corning branch office, 720 Hoag Street, effective June 30, 2013.
All court business from Corning will be transferred to three locations in Red Bluff: the 633 Washington Street Historic Courthouse, the 445 Pine Street Courthouse Annex, and the Juvenile Justice Center, 1790 Walnut Street.

During the last five years, state funding for the judicial branch has been cut by 30 percent, with significant reductions impacting the budgets of individual superior courts. This equates to approximately $1.1 billion in cuts to the judicial branch since fiscal year 2007-2008. Only about one penny of every General Fund dollar in the state now goes to the judicial branch.

In Tehama Superior Court, the reductions have led to a 20 percent reduction of staff. The Court has also been forced to cut court employee wages and reduced or eliminated employee benefits in the 2011-12 and 2012-13 fiscal years. In 2010-11, the Court reduced its hours and is currently open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Fridays. The Court has already renegotiated various service contracts and consolidated or eliminated other services and court expenses.

With the Governor’s projected cuts planned for the 2013-2014 fiscal year, the Court will be forced to not only close the Corning branch but also look for further reductions to service hours and expenses.
“The Court regrets having to take this action; however, there is simply no other option due to the severe ongoing cuts Tehama Court has already received and will continue to receive for the fiscal year 2013/2014. Our Court has already made major adjustments and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. The Court is trying its best to limit the impact on the services we provide to the community.”